Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s especially worst when said assumption is based solely on looks no?

Shh! Quiet, I hear a Hunter

… oh wait, it’s me. Grr. :rolleyes:
Yep, it sucks when it revolves around looks. Contrary to popular belief, women are visual and I can be attracted to men with nice torsos, for instance. Now we all know that men dont restrict baring their torsos to beach trips, so I do constantly observe topless men around me. Do I resent them for making me sin? No! Regardless of whether or not I feel lust for them, the first thought that springs to my mind is not ‘oh he must be trying to attract some female attention’. I just assume that he is warm and/or is doing some kind of work which requires he not be restricted by a shirt?

Sometimes I see men with torsos I would personally not want to see, however who am I to tell them to cover up because I personally dont like it?
 
Amen to that. Although modesty is a virtue, some men use modesty to control women, or use women as a scapegoat for their sins. I had a boyfriend in the past that tried to use modesty to control me. He complained that since I wore skirts I was immodest and that if I ever wore nice clothing it must be me trying to attract all these men. Not true. I just like dressing nicely. I think that men need to take responsibility for their actions.
40.png
severus68:
What is also sad about this whole thing is that some forget that it is possible to admire the beauty/looks of a man or a woman without having lustful thoughts. We are told that men however are in essence so weak that they cannot control themselves at the sight of the bare skin of a woman. Then there are those who decide how much bare skin is permissable. Since references have been made to admonishments made in 1921, I assume Victorian dress would be acceptable, specifically the kind worn by Queen Victoria after the death of her husband.

You know --you have brought the same thing - I have been thinking. There is this strong element to control women — within this push–to dictate how women dress.
 
Amen to that. Although modesty is a virtue, some men use modesty to control women, or use women as a scapegoat for their sins. I had a boyfriend in the past that tried to use modesty to control me. He complained that since I wore skirts I was immodest and that if I ever wore nice clothing it must be me trying to attract all these men. Not true. I just like dressing nicely. I think that men need to take responsibility for their actions.
Agreed .You are well rid of that controlling, jealous boyfriend, if I may so…
 
So do you think that men don’t have the same call to live modest lives and men’s lust is all women’s fault? That is what it sounds like from your post. While modesty and holiness is important, men need to take responsibility for contributing to the problem of lust and modesty. Men need to dress modestly as well. This tends to be ignored because of the stereotype that men are visual and women are not. As a woman I can say this is NOT true. I am very visual… more visual than my husband that is for sure. So the way men dress DOES affect women as well. Also I do not think it is fair when men expect us not to wear shorts or non-floor length skirts during the summer. We get hot too.
Dear jobelorocks,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Fair comment. Indeed, it is incumbent upon men also to don modest attire and to be considerate in their dress and behaviour, so as not cause temptation to the opposite sex. Thus they are certainly held to the virtue of modesty, equally with women; witness the admonition of Canadian bishops in May 1946: “Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very scanty bathing suits. They thus commit offenses against the virtue of modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbour”.

The way both men and women dress has an effect for good or ill, which is why the issue of modesty is so vitally important, especially in our Western culture with its obsession with voluptuous fashions and sex. We are all born with a fallen nature disposed to sin and, consequently, we must ensure that our bodies are kept well covered in order to avoid the dangers of concupiscence. This fact, a result of Original Sin, is deliberately ignored when we arrogantly flout the Church’s teaching on modesty by donning seductive and inappropriate apparel.

There are other more seemly and attractive garments (my wife wears them, so I should know), apart from shorts, that also allow the body to breathe during the hot weather season. Shorts are indecent attire, irrespective of hot weather considerations, because they expose far too much of a woman’s legs to the gaze of men and thus invite them to focus upon their body parts, rather than engage with their personalities. Moreover, by so dressing women are likely to be the occasion of sin, which is a very grave a matter indeed.

Modern women who have been desensitized by the immoral climate of the West, may well deny that the wearing of shorts, bikinis or mini-skirts presents any real temptation to the male sex. They may even try to conceal their own guilt by such uncharitable statements as, “He must be a pervert ensalved by lust” or “scanty attire in men does not affect me at all, so why should the sight of scantily clad women affect men?”. However, the fact is that when a woman is dressed immodestly, she becomes a temptress for men. Let is recall our Lord’s words to men who fall prey to such allurements: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (St. Matt. 5: 28). Indirectly at least, immodest women are included in this indictment, being cooperators in the sins of men. God has made women beautiful and attractive to men so as to fit with His plan for procreation in holy and lawful wedlock. Alas, as a result of his fallen estate, man must continually struggle to regulate this attraction by keeping his base instincts in subjection. Now unless both men and women fortify themselves by prayer and take positive steps to minimise the strength of evil desire, sin will quickly enter into their immortal souls and defile them. Thus they owe it to each other as brethren in Christ to be ‘cooperators’ in avoiding sin - perhaps the best reason of all for giving immodest attire a very wide-berth.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
From what I can tell you know little about fashion. Shorts can go all the way to the knee and same with skirts and that is in no way immodest. If men can wear shorts, women should be able to wear shorts as well. Also anything that hits between the knee and the ankle so between knee length and floor length is terribly unflattering especially those like me with short legs. As far as fashionable cool attire that goes down to the floor, pants are not cool (temperature wise) and I think that floor length skirts are frankly matronly and I see no problems with knee length and even many under knee length attire.

Culture and society deems what is modest. So knee length or even a couple inches above knee length is modest and appropriate. I think men are just trying to control women and use them as a scapegoat for their sins. I would like to see men take some responsibility for their sins, which from your posts you seem to think that it is all on the women. Men need to work on keeping reins on their eyes…just like I have to because our society sees being visual as men’s issue and not a women’s issue, which is so untrue.
Dear jobelorocks,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Fair comment. Indeed, it is incumbent upon men also to don modest attire and to be considerate in their dress and behaviour, so as not cause temptation to the opposite sex. Thus they are certainly held to the virtue of modesty, equally with women; witness the admonition of Canadian bishops in May 1946: “Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very scanty bathing suits. They thus commit offenses against the virtue of modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbour”.

The way both men and women dress has an effect for good or ill, which is why the issue of modesty is so vitally important, especially in our Western culture with its obsession with voluptuous fashions and sex. We are all born with a fallen nature disposed to sin and, consequently, we must ensure that our bodies are kept well covered in order to avoid the dangers of concupiscence. This fact, a result of Original Sin, is deliberately ignored when we arrogantly flout the Church’s teaching on modesty by donning seductive and inappropriate apparel.

There are other more seemly and attractive garments (my wife wears them, so I should know), apart from shorts, that also allow the body to breathe during the hot weather season. Shorts are indecent attire, irrespective of hot weather considerations, because they expose far too much of a woman’s legs to the gaze of men and thus invite them to focus upon their body parts, rather than engage with their personalities. Moreover, by so dressing women are likely to be the occasion of sin, which is a very grave a matter indeed.

Modern women who have been desensitized by the immoral climate of the West, may well deny that the wearing of shorts, bikinis or mini-skirts presents any real temptation to the male sex. They may even try to conceal their own guilt by such uncharitable statements as, “He must be a pervert ensalved by lust” or “scanty attire in men does not affect me at all, so why should the sight of scantily clad women affect men?”. However, the fact is that when a woman is dressed immodestly, she becomes a temptress for men. Let is recall our Lord’s words to men who fall prey to such allurements: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (St. Matt. 5: 28). Indirectly at least, immodest women are included in this indictment, being cooperators in the sins of men. God has made women beautiful and attractive to men so as to fit with His plan for procreation in holy and lawful wedlock. Alas, as a result of his fallen estate, man must continually struggle to regulate this attraction by keeping his base instincts in subjection. Now unless both men and women fortify themselves by prayer and take positive steps to minimise the strength of evil desire, sin will quickly enter into their immortal souls and defile them. Thus they owe it to each other as brethren in Christ to be ‘cooperators’ in avoiding sin - perhaps the best reason of all for giving immodest attire a very wide-berth.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
I love mini skirts. I must be corrupted.

And yes, I am glad you are able read my mind and know EXACTLY why I wear mini skirts, and thus proceed to make judgements on me based on mere assumptions.
Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response to my post.

By way of reply, let me say that irrespective of your motive for wearing a seductive style garment, that does not make it any less a seductive style garment. Moreover, it should be remembered that the mini-skirt, which shamefully flaunts a woman’s legs, owes its origin to one Mary Quant here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘sixties swinging’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement. The mini-skirt became a symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress and of exercising some power over men, who had supposedly repressed her for so long. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it soon became a powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the dreadful effects of which continue to be felt today. For example, we now have seductive style clothing being manufactured specifically for little girls, including mini-skirts, thus robbing them of their innocence and encouraging them to grow up into adulthood much quicker. Alas, this is where our sexually permissive society is taking us and only God knows where it will all end.

Aside from its blatant indecency, why would any Catholic woman worth her salt wish to wear a garment that has contributed to the moral decadence with which we are now surrounded everywhere in the Western world?

This will be my final post this side of the weekend, so may I bid yourself and all other posters farewell and have a splendid weekend whatever you plan to do.

God bless you, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
You deduct way too many conclusions about people you do not know and have NO idea what their thought processes are behind their choice of garments. You may have your opinion on what proper attire is, but you should not try to judge what is inside a persons thoughts or heart.
Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response to my post.

By way of reply, let me say that irrespective of your motive for wearing a seductive style garment, that does not make it any less a seductive style garment. Moreover, it should be remembered that the mini-skirt, which shamefully flaunts a woman’s legs, owes its origin to one Mary Quant here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘sixties swinging’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement. The mini-skirt became a symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress and of exercising some power over men, who had supposedly repressed her for so long. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it soon became a powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the dreadful effects of which continue to be felt today. For example, we now have seductive style clothing being manufactured specifically for little girls, including mini-skirts, thus robbing them of their innocence and encouraging them to grow up into adulthood much quicker. Alas, this is where our sexually permissive society is taking us and only God knows where it will all end.

Aside from its blatant indecency, why would any Catholic woman worth her salt wish to wear a garment that has contributed to the moral decadence with which we are now surrounded everywhere in the Western world?

This will be my final post this side of the weekend, so may I bid yourself and all other posters farewell and have a splendid weekend whatever you plan to do.

God bless you, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
I think you misunderstood me. The quotes given by some were from 1921 about improper dressing then. So I was asking whether the Victorian mode of dress was acceptable to them as being before people began to dress immodestly and admonished for that in 1921.
I know sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit but can’t help myself sometimes.
 
My woman won’t dress immodestly, even in front of me because she thinks she is too overweight! grrrr… :mad: I think she is beautiful.

(I’m ok with the modesty in public though, haha)
 
Thats alright Jharek. Yes those 18th century women. I did consider posting about that but thought it might have caused a few here to faint.
 
Oh and honestly, if a woman having a skirt or shorts slightly above her knees makes you wild inside, you might… want to reconsider the what the real problem is.

Modesty is good… forcing women to dress in full pants or down far below their knees all the time… no good. Just in my opinion…
 
AMEN!!! Men need to take some responsibility… which many don’t. Most just want to blame women for their sins.
Oh and honestly, if a woman having a skirt or shorts slightly above her knees makes you wild inside, you might… want to reconsider the what the real problem is.

Modesty is good… forcing women to dress in full pants or down far below their knees all the time… no good. Just in my opinion…
 
I must have missed that thread but someone said that on the “Slutwalk” thread. He seems to have disappeared.
 
Because it is collectivist. Self-control of one’s eyes is within the realm of the individual.

Furthermore, it is contrary to true human nature to place such excess value in what the eyes see. It is not an accident. It is not the responsibility of others. Period.

You might as well say I should’ve dressed like Justin Bieber so as to aid my nerd-bashing “fellow brothers and sisters”.

Seriously just say it. Your logic already has anyways.
Let me restate but shorten my point that you skipped over.

Control over one’s eyes is comparable to control over one’s mouth.

You don’t provoke and antagonize a person who eats too much, someone who comes over to your house. You instead show caution and charity.

If someone has a temper…you use tact, caution, moderation > modesty with them…you don’t provoke them visually or verbally. You adjust your actions somewhat within reason.
 
Let me restate but shorten my point that you skipped over.

Control over one’s eyes is comparable to control over one’s mouth.

You don’t provoke and antagonize a person who eats too much, someone who comes over to your house. You instead show caution and charity.

If someone has a temper…you use tact, caution, moderation > modesty with them…you don’t provoke them visually or verbally. You adjust your actions somewhat within reason.

Yea-- that is the type of excuse wife abusers use . The wife provoked me–made me loose my temper. Like was mentioned prior --it is about using the “lust” argument to also manipulate and control.
 
TRUE THAT!!! It is sad when people use a woman or anyone for that matter as an excuse for their behavior. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and just moving the blame is not the answer. It kind of reminds me how Adam blamed Eve for giving him the fruit to eat. He still ate it, her actions may have influenced his, but he still is responsible for his own sin.

Yea-- that is the type of excuse wife abusers use . The wife provoked me–made me loose my temper. Like was mentioned prior --it is about using the “lust” argument to also manipulate and control.
 

Yea-- that is the type of excuse wife abusers use . The wife provoked me–made me loose my temper. Like was mentioned prior --it is about using the “lust” argument to also manipulate and control.
So you’ve never ever modified your approach with people based on your read of the larger picture.

Never. Right!

You’re a closet collectivist.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
Yea-- that is the type of excuse wife abusers use . The wife provoked me–made me loose my temper. Like was mentioned prior --it is about using the “lust” argument to also manipulate and control.
So you’ve never ever modified your approach with people based on your read of the larger picture.

Never. Right!

You’re a closet collectivist.

The person with the problem should resolve the problem in himself–and Not depend and/or manipulate others to walk on egg shells–to accommodate the one with the problem.
 
I think you misunderstood me. The quotes given by some were from 1921 about improper dressing then. So I was asking whether the Victorian mode of dress was acceptable to them as being before people began to dress immodestly and admonished for that in 1921.
I know sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit but can’t help myself sometimes.
Remember in 1921 skirts that were short enough to show the calves were themselves an innovation, but were nonetheless commonly worn by women. Two decades earlier anything above the ankle would have been socially (let alone religiously) condemned as immodest, scandalous, and doubtless tempting men to lust.

Why is it that in the first two decades of the twentieth century women were permitted to change their dress in accord with the mores of the times and don something that earlier generations would have deemed scandalous, and yet in the 2010s we are not allowed to do the same?
 
Someone who uses their brain!
Remember in 1921 skirts that were short enough to show the calves were themselves an innovation, but were nonetheless commonly worn by women. Two decades earlier anything above the ankle would have been socially (let alone religiously) condemned as immodest, scandalous, and doubtless tempting men to lust.

Why is it that in the first two decades of the twentieth century women were permitted to change their dress in accord with the mores of the times and don something that earlier generations would have deemed scandalous, and yet in the 2010s we are not allowed to do the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top